Any atheists against same sex marriage?

I’ll correct you, then . ** Miller ** clearly explained what he meant by “I didn’t care” :

Had he said “I don’t care” for the reasons you mention, I wouldn’t have had an issue with that, at the contrary.

And homosexuality conjures im many people’s minds the sexual exploitation of altar’s boys by catholic priests.

And so what, if they oppose it? It doesn’t become anymore right or wrong because a particular group with its peculiar agenda opposes it. This in itself doesn’t make it intrisically different from the issue of SSM, at the contrary.

And so what if the Mormons were still supporting polygamy? The issue, objectively, isn’t polygamy, it’s exploitation. And you can perfectly exploit your only spouse. More importantly, you know àperfectly why people oppose polygamy. Not because it leads to exploitation. But because it’s just “not right”.

Many times I’ve seen debates about polygamy, generally, more precisely, about polygamist immigrants (*) Do people who discuss the issue even bother to mention why polygamy is an issue? No, they take for the most part as granted that everybody agree that it’s a bad thing. And why? Because it doesn’t fit in our traditionnal view of marriage (exactly like for homosexuals). And they’re right. Mostly everybody agree without feeling the need to wonder why the concept shouldn’t be tolerated.

The fact that people opposed to SSM use it as an argument so easily also shows that people expect any contradictor to accept the concept that polygamy is a bad thing. And the correct answer to such arguments, as you mentionned at the beginning of your post, should be “so what if it leads to the legalization of polygamous marriage too?” rather than “it’s not the same problem at all”, “slipery slope argument” , or even worse, as i’ve seen even here, by the pro-SSM debater declaring that of course he would never support the evil polygamous mariage.

(*) and yes, it’s an issue that can’t be wawed away by mentionning that traditionnal polygamy, in particular in Africa, is mysogynistic without condemning at the same time all marriages, including monogamous marriages, of people from these countries. The net result of not recognizing polygamist marriages, in these cases, is that some of the co-spouses end up with no rights at all, which certainly doesn’t better their lot, mysogyny or not. Actually, I’m more worried about the situation of “legally unexisting co-spouses” of immigrants than about non-mysogyne westerners wanting to marry a couple SOs, because the latter are in a much better situation anyway. The situation is basicallly: the issue shouldn’t exist at the first place because it’s not right/ polygamy is evil/these marriages are exploitative/it’s illegal here, so let’s pretend it doesn’t exist at all, and put our fingers in our ears singing “lalala” when confronted with the very real problems faced by very real co-spouses.

I fail to see how society benefits from an heterosexual marriage. You don’t need to be married to beget children, and you don’t need the institution of marriage to protect the rights of said children, either. So, what makes the official stamp of approval on your heterosexual, monogamous marriage particularily beneficial for society? Why aren’t you happy with a symbolic ceremony with your friends and/or the blessing of your church?

While it is true that state sanctioned heterosexual marriage for the people is relatively new in history’s long view, the benefits are that the tasks of child rearing and property settlement, and responsibilities of the parents are defined in law. For those who do not get legally married, the state has common law marriage which accomplishes the same thing. So in terms of law you don’t even need a marriage to be considered married for those purposes.
Back in the days of serfdom, the common folk had no rights even to their own wives. The nobleman had the first right of sex with the bride over the husband. Since they didn’t even own themselves, they sure as hell didn’t have any property to worry about either.
The state also has the right and the interest to promote marriage for a number of reasons as well, mostly along those lines I have indicated. It is not soley confined to child rearing though. It has to do with ease of setting up property settlements, authorization for medical care in case of incapacitation, etc… To promote families it also has established survivors benefits through SS and pensions which will all be negatively affected by gay marriage. The other problems will be with increased case loads in family courts for divorces of same sex couples. The gay lifestyle has not been one of chaste behavior and not characterized by monogamous relationships, so I would not be surprised to see an inordinate number of divorce cases for this one segment of the population out of proportion to their numbers in society.
I have no objection to having gays get married symbolically or doing whatever they wish to do. I do have a problem with them wanting preferential treatment in law and even more so when it will cost me and society more money and problems than it solves for no benefit to us.

By now it’s clear that your understanding of sociology is just as poor as your grasp on history.

I take it from the above that you don’t consider anti-miscegenation laws to be discriminatory, then. After all, everyone has the right to marry any person they wish of the same race. Is it special treatment for someone to be allowed to marry the person they love who is a different race? How about a different social status? Hair color?

As far as overturning the history of civilizations, if we had been worried about that we never would have outlawed slavery.

We do not bar gays from marriage. They are perfectly free to engage in marriage as defined in law to marry a person of the opposite sex who is not a close blood relative and are of the age of consent. What is being asked for is a preferential law to allow a new definition of marriage. Absent any demonstrated benefit to society as a whole, I can see no reason to enact such legislation. Just wanting something because it will benefit you personally in not sufficient reason for it. I too would like a great pension for my military service of four years in wartime. I don’t see how that would benefit society or the armed forces if it were to be given. So I would not expect others to support it or argue that it is my right despite the fact that I was deprived of my freedom by majority vote.
The fact is that 52000 young men were deprived of their lives by majority vote for the greater good of society. All their families got was $10,000 for that life. So not allowing gays to marry the same sex is of little consequence compared to that sacrifice. Also since what gays are asking for is an affirmative, preferential law, it must have some demonstrated benefit to us all before I or any other person can support it. Now if you will be part of a movement to grant me a great pension, I can be persuaded to do the same for gay marriage.

Well I am in VERY good company then with Voltaire. The Marriage of Figaro is one of my favorite operas as well. I love Mozart.

Just not to the persons they love and want to share their lives with. You don’t think that matters?

No. Only the *same * rights that everyone else enjoys. Where do you see preference *created * rather than eliminated?

Straights would continue to have the same right they have now, to marry people they don’t love and don’t want to share their lives with, which is the full extent of the “right” gays now enjoy.

I don’t think that there is any debate as to the benefits of society of getting rid of slavery. It could be demonstrated at the time and even in the founding of the USA it was acknowledged that it was not something that the folks were proud of. You have not stated any reason for overtuning that history which is what I asked for. I think even you could come up with the reasons for getting rid of slavery. So if you wish to have the state legalize gay marriage you should be able to do the same for those benefits to society.

The responsabilities of the parents are defined by law even when they aren’t married. So, once again, what’s the benefit for society of this marriage thing?

I’m not sure what you mean by “the task of property settlement” but if you’re refering to inheritance, then it’s a benefit for the surviving spouse, not for society.

I hope so, because the state doesn’t need to promote marriage in order to protect children or to define the responsabilities of parents.

These aren’t benefits for society, these are benefits for the spouses. I still fail to see how it benefits society at large to grant these priviledges to spouses, and even less why it would benefit society in the case of an heterosexual marriage and not in the case of an homosexual one.

In other words, the issue you have with SSM is that homosexual couples will have the same priviledges as heterosexual couples, and this will cost money? I still don’t know what’s the benefit for society of handing money to the surviving spouse, ad if there is one, why it doesn’t apply to homosexual couples.

So, basically, the problem is that if there are more marriage there will be more divorces to settle. If it’s a problem, why don’t you think the state should discourage marriage rather than to promote it? If this is a problem, why don’t you propose to bar divorced people (who have a proven history of unstability) from marrying again, exactly?

And as a single man, I can say the same about heterosexual marriages : the priviledges enjoyed by married couples cost me money and problems without any advantage that I can perceive either for society at large or for me personnally (at least you were unable to point to any such advantage). So, why can’t you be satisfied with some sort of symbolic heterosexual union? I don’t have any objection to that, either. You can even have sex with your partner if you so wish, I don’t mind.

Voltaire would hardly pause to wipe you off his shoe.

I think Voltaire had a much better view of the rights of man than you do. At least my error is the same as his and he was closer to the time and place of such things than I. So I think that you will have to wipe Voltaire off of YOUR shoes since that is where you seem to think those who disagree with you belong.

Moderator’s Note: Cervaise, tone it down or take it to the Pit.

The benefit is in not throwing a family of the surviving spouse out on the street if the partner that owns the property dies.

The state will define any relationship that results in children as a common law marriage if the partners are not married to one another legally.

The reason is that the overwhelming majority of hetreosexual marriages have children as a result. That is why society needs and has a real interest in promoting marriage and granting privileges.

IT used to be very difficult to get a divorce too, by the way. If you feel that there are too many, then you should urge your lawmakers to make it difficult once again.

Are you seriously making this argument? Maybe next they can pass an “it’s ok to punch out Phil Mickelson”* law. Phil shouldn’t have a problem with this law, as it grants him the same rights as everyone else; he is certainly free to punch himself out.

Nobody is asking for a preferential law. People are asking for the government to stop discriminating based on gender.

  • Phil Mickelson used here just because I was reading about him on espn. Please do not punch out Phil Mickelson.

“The laws of France are majestic in their equality. They forbid the poor and the rich alike from sleeping under bridges.”

randyjet, you are doing an impressive job of holding up your end of the argument, although I don’t think you’ve got a leg to stand on. However, it’s difficult to follow you when you don’t close your quote tags. If you want to quote someone please put in
[/quote]
after what they said. Thank you.

So… because we have other laws that discriminate, we shouldn’t bother getting rid of any discriminatory laws? :dubious:

YOu woud have to be my size to even contemplate such a thing and I doubt any took it seriously.

clairobscur, I also do not care if SSM legitimizes polygamy. If polygamists organize to legalize their relationships, I’m not going to stand in their way. If they don’t, I’m not going to make the effort for them. I don’t view the illegalization of polygamy as nearly as great an injustice as the illegalization of SSM. In the abstract, sure, it probably should be legal, but I don’t see an overwhelming need for it. If you want to convinve me different, I’m open to your argument, but this thread isn’t the place for it. This isn’t a thread about polygamy, it’s a thread about SSM, and bringing up polygamy is a strawman.